I have made the slides (in Dutch) available in PDF format. Ignore the jokes if you do not grok them.

Thanks Zeus, for the Grimbergen bottles. I will make them count.

I think that the following are the main points of interest href="http://www.vmars.tuwien.ac.at/people/puschner.html">Peter Puschner
tried to get drilled into our skulls. The course focuses on the worst case
analysis, and for that there are three major items one needs to take into
account: the piece of code to analyse, the input it consumes and the hardware
it runs on. Giving the fact the most code consumes input means that there is
some state associated with it, that determines the paths takes in the static
code graph. Peter clearly stated that the input should be part of the problem
specification, which often complicates the analysis. Additionally, the hardware
has some associated state as well (think caches, branch prediciton, etc.) that
influences the timing of each task we want to analyse. Different instances of
actions in the task have different durations, and as such the sequence of the
actions carries out during each task becomes the important factor. It was
clearly illustrated that measurements are not adequatefor dealing with worst
case scenario’s. I think the lesson to take away from the first class is that
there is no way to measure WCET, one must therefore analyse the program.

The second lesson dealt with a number of approaches for determining the WCET:
tree-based (from the program graph), path-based (potential dynamic execution
paths), and IPET based. Tree-based WCET does not scale well, path=based does,
but that has the disadavantage of getting quite complex as the program size
increases. To deal with this, the IPET technqiue can be used, in which we
desribe the flow of control by using a number of equations that constrain the
possibilities: program flow going ionto a node, must come out of it, so this
yields a number of equations that state how many times an edge can be taken.
The drawback here is that solving the equation using ILP is NP hard in general.
Another technique discussed was the modelling of execution time by mapping a
sequence of instructions to an execution time. This however requires
information on the hardware timing to deal with the various hardware
enhancements to the processor (think pipelines, caches, out=of-order execution,
…). I think this seems to have quite some non-deterministic aspects. Peter
then moved on to show how one can model pipelines, to be used in the WCET
analysis, as well as how one can model caches within the IPET framework. The
takeway lesson here is that there is no straighforward technique to estimate
the WCET, and the most powerful techniques must use hardware timing
information, which is a hard problem in itself.

The third lesson dealt almost exclusively with the modeling of the caches,
moving from a concrete state to an abstract state, which can be reasoned about.
Peter identified 4 essential categories for the analysis in a cache model:
always hit, always miss, globally persistent, locally persistent, plus one
leftover category. For each of these categories, there is a different semantics
for the start state, the update function and the join function on the abstarct
cache model. Finally, we received an introduction to potential timing anolalies
that can occur and how to deal with those.

In the fourth lesson, the focus moved to measuring execution times. Here the
key takeway was that it is very unlikely that the hardware will be set to the
worst case state for executing the application, leading to (at times gross)
underestimates of the WCET. For a WCET bound, more systematic techniques are
required. One of the best performing WCET measurements tools relies on genetic
algorithms for generating the input that drives the WC scenario. Still, for the
benchmarks shown, there can be quite a large discrepancy between the
analytically obtained WCET and the WCET obtained through use of a GA. Other
potential techniques include a probabilisitc approach and program segmentation
with a path based analysis.

In the final class on Friday, Peter discussed some issues with time-predicatble
sofware and hardware. Predicates, transforming execution paths, etc. can be
used to get more reliable WCET bounds. The major takeaway here was that the
classical analysis where one focuses on the mean execution time (with its
distribution, like we did in href="http://www.itkovian.net/base/statistically-rigorous-java-performance-evaluation">our
Java stats paper at OOPSLA) is not
going to work at all for a WCET analysis. Peter also argued for better WCET
bounded hardware, or at least hardware that could make the WCET analysis
easier.